Plaintiff, a passenger, had bought a rail ticket which he was prevented from using because of industrial action.
He sued the union for expenses incurred as a result (statutory protections didn’t apply since the unions were striking without a ballot).
Held that Defendant's knew of the existence of contracts between British Rail and passengers who had already purchased tickets at the time the strike was called, and they intended to interfere with the performance of such contracts by inducing British Rail employees to withdraw their labour.
The interference with the performance of the contract between Plaintiff and British Rail was a necessary consequence of the Defendant's actions and therefore they were liable to him for damages.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Labour Law | Industrial Action Notes (19 pages) |